Why Salvation Army is bad.

[Maharishi]

You see. They aren't a charity. They are an extension of the church. Which means they can take your money and donate it to "the Earth is flat and dinosaurs never existed" campaign. Why? Because, again, not a charity, its a church. Which makes religion a key part in discussing the practices that the original poster finds wrong. If you do not want religion discussed then why didn't this thread get locked. Once again, religion is an important part of discussing this and pointing out how the original poster is off base with his grudge and demand that no one donate to it.

I think it's pretty clear how you can discuss the actions of the charity without discussing their underlying spiritual beliefs.

[Deleted]

http://www.prosebeforehos.com/cultur...ve-your-money/
This has nothing to do with religion, so don't start talking about it.

It says in the third paragraph that it's an evangelical church which is likely why they're intolerant of anything that isn't the missionary position for procreation.

[drwelfare]

I get some of my most awesome suits from them so I am ok with them.

[usiris]

I saw a video on this last year, since then I have stopped giving money to them and instead found other outlets that help people regardless of who they choose to be or sexual orientation(note: those two are separate).

[eucatastrophe]

Thanks for posting OP.
This entire thread is quite interesting, informative and unfortunately disheartening to read.

[statlerthegreat]

I think it's pretty clear how you can discuss the actions of the charity without discussing their underlying spiritual beliefs.

Its not. Understand, they are a religious organization. They use the money donated to them to further their preaching. Part of their doctrine is an anti-gay agenda, because thats what their religious organization believes in.

See where this is headed?

They are an extension of a church. The donations they receive are used to further their ability to extend their message of faith in Jesus Christ. Says so in their mission statement.

So again, the original poster has an issue with the money being used to back a lobby group. One that is tied into their religious affiliation. Its legit to call them wrong. But anyone who wants to point out that since they are a church, using their donations to further their religious message, well we can't have discussion on that.

When my father was trudging through a jungle in Viet Nam, getting shot at, defending a country full of worthless ingrates, the Salvation Army cooked him meals. Offered to cover the cost of a flight to see his uncle who was dying of cancer. 30 years later when I was trudging through a desert in the Middle east, getting shot at, defending a country full of worthless ingrates, the Salvation Army was the only group there to welcome me home, sans the protesters that were throwing rocks at me. They offered to fly me home to see my grandfather who was dying of cancer. The Red Cross didn't, the government didn't, the 4000 shitty peace activist didn't (and couldn't because they were too busy spitting and throwing rocks at me, and my father). The Salvation Army, did. And felt it was not their duty, but rather their privilege.

They are a church. Who has done a great deal of good. But yea, lets all call them names because they have a religious agenda.

[Feranor]

I think it's pretty clear how you can discuss the actions of the charity without discussing their underlying spiritual beliefs.

Only if you believe in free will. Which I don't. Beliefs inform actions.

I saw a nicely concise video on the Salvation Army about a year ago, let me look it up:



Or just go to their very own website: http://salvationarmyusa.org/usn/www_...D?Opendocument

[Buttfear]

I go to Salvation Army auctions every week going on 10yrs now and I can say that is the most corrupt organization I have ever seen.

1st, they employ basically slave labor. Say a guy is in trouble with the law, has no place to live, whatever... He can go to what's called the Salvation Army(SA) Adult Rehabilitation Center(ARC) where he'll be provided food, shelter, and a starting salary of less than $10 per week. Since he's paid so little the SA will have him fill out the form for food stamps which will be used to feed him, oh, and he has to bunk with 3 other guys. Since they don't make any money most of them end up homeless when they leave the program only to return a month later.

2nd, the place is full of thieves. Since the guys in the program don't make any money they steal everything they can get their hands on and sell to pawn shops, or second hand vendors. They never get thrown out because the employees that overlook them are doing the exact same thing.

3rd, an eduction is a dangerous thing. This is what I was told by a Major in the SA whan I asked why they didn't educate the guys in their program so they good get real jobs and support themselves.

[caninepawprints]

OP, I both love and hate you for posting this article.

This year, I decided to be charitable. Every time I pass one of the jingling bells, I had decided to give something, even if it was $1 each time (by the end of the season, I'll have donated quite a bit as I do a lot of shopping). I used to get really uncomfortable passing by them without the intention of giving them something, and I wanted to avoid that feeling this year.

And now I hate myself for donating to them. -_-

[Maharishi]

...

1. I don't make the case that the rule preventing discussion of religion limits discussion. But the topics proven itself almost impossible to approach civilly on this board.

2. All the good points you bring up in your post have nothing to do with religion. You can discuss the good they do without brining their religion into. Really, in your post you only mention it twice, and neither of those times make a pro salvation army argument.

Nobody's attacking the salvation army because they're a church (at least that I saw). The discussion is about using funds donated presumably with the intent of alleviating suffering being used for unrelated moral lobbying.

[statlerthegreat]

Why does everyone keep calling them a charity?

They are an extension of a church. Not a charity. Once again, not a charity.

NOT A CHARITY

THEY ARE AN EXTENSION OF A CHURCH

You act like they lied to you about their mission. They didn't. Not their fault people aren't smart enough to pay attention to who they donate too. They very clearly explain themselves and their mission. Its like burning yourself with a cup of coffee because you didn't to read the "Caution: Hot" label. Which frankly is what I expect from society, especially the youth, now days.

Edit to save double post:

1. I don't make the case that the rule preventing discussion of religion limits discussion. But the topics proven itself almost impossible to approach civilly on this board.

2. All the good points you bring up in your post have nothing to do with religion. You can discuss the good they do without brining their religion into. Really, in your post you only mention it twice, and neither of those times make a pro salvation army argument.

Nobody's attacking the salvation army because they're a church (at least that I saw). The discussion is about using funds donated presumably with the intent of alleviating suffering being used for unrelated moral lobbying.

Yes they are. The original complaint was the use of their received donations. As a church, they use it to further their religious agenda. Some of that agenda is helping those in need as the church sees fit. Some of that agenda is furthering the promotion of their religious beliefs.

I get the feeling you and I are looking at this from completely different planets and neither one of us will get our point across. So consider this a done issue.

[gamelyn]

Why does everyone keep calling them a charity?

They are an extension of a church. Not a charity. Once again, not a charity.

NOT A CHARITY

THEY ARE AN EXTENSION OF A CHURCH

You act like they lied to you about their mission. They didn't. Not their fault people aren't smart enough to pay attention to who they donate too. They very clearly explain themselves and their mission. Its like burning yourself with a cup of coffee because you didn't to read the "Caution: Hot" label. Which frankly is what I expect from society, especially the youth, now days.

Edit to save double post:



Yes they are. The original complaint was the use of their received donations. As a church, they use it to further their religious agenda. Some of that agenda is helping those in need as the church sees fit. Some of that agenda is furthering the promotion of their religious beliefs.

I get the feeling you and I are looking at this from completely different planets and neither one of us will get our point across. So consider this a done issue.

Hey bud, I don't think anyone is arguing with you that they focus more on their charitable work than their religion when soliciting in front of Wally World or Best Buy. I have similar disdain for the group.

However, I can also identify some unions using their dues to lobby the polar opposite interest of some of its constituents.

Morale of the story, do your research before you throw your money at someone. Treat charitable gifts like you would any investment.

[ElmoMcBeastly]

Why does everyone keep calling them a charity?

They are an extension of a church. Not a charity. Once again, not a charity.

I respectfully disagree. A charity is any organization that exists for the purposes of "benevolence," whether in a local or global scope. What does benevolence mean? It depends on the mission of the charity. Some charities, like Rainbow/PUSH, do exactly what SA is doing: feeding and clothing the homeless, performing acts of kindness for the distressed, as well as advancing a political agenda they believe will benefit humanity as a whole. The only difference from SA is that they come from the political left instead of the right (and, perhaps, proportion of budget split between charitable works and political activism; the Rainbow Coalition is a bit removed from its origin as Operation Breadbasket).

But it does not make Rainbow/PUSH any less of a charity.

[Jenner]

To the OP, I'm going to assume by "bad" you mean they are not worth donating money or goods to and that there exists other alternatives. While other alternatives exist in upwards of a million, whether any of them are better is questionable and there are sites such as Charity Review that specialize in analyzing those reporting their expenditures to the IRS.

I thought the premise was interesting, and I have donated to them in the past so I did some very brief research. Two articles of interest are the Wikipedia's Article and the Better Business Bureau's page for them.

Controversy arising from views on homosexuality are not surprising, giving that they are a Protestant church that chooses to organize toward humanitarian relief. In reference to the threat of shelter shutdown in New York, it was in response to the City demanding the organization violate one of it's beliefs. In that sense, if you feel that an organization has moral obligations that oppose your own and aren't comfortable donating to such then it isn't a charity for you, but it's probably not fair to deem it "bad" solely because it stands for what it believes.

To the other posters with stories of corruption, what you posit is disheartening to hear about any organization, but that's also a quandary. Any organization of significant size is by definition comprised of individuals that hold to the ideals of their employer to various degrees. What should be of concern is how widespread violations are and how they are dealt with.

Charity is by definition the acts of service, gifts of goods, or provision of shelter to the less fortunate. Whether the entity doing so is 501(c)(3) with the IRS, a international church-like organization, or Jimbo the Hardware Store Clerk handing 5$ over to a curb-crier, it's all charity. The only thing that diminishes charity is the motivation for doing it. The BBB claims it helps 30 million Americans alone, not including the other 124 countries they operate in. This, in my book, classifies them as an overall helpful organization to the world at large.

[ElmoMcBeastly]

That is pretty insightful, Jenner. At the end of the day, any organization's biggest shortcoming is that it is, by necessity, made up of people.

[Oafus]

Only if you believe in free will. Which I don't. Beliefs inform actions.

If there was no beliefs in the world, this organization would still lobby for other things, be it progressing education or suppressing rights. Regardless of the fact that they are lobbying, and regardless of their beliefs(which is just a scape goat) the thing I'm concerned with is them not doing as they say they are doing.

Let me put it in terms slower people may understand.

1. There is a group of people
2. This group of people has a goal(good or bad)
3. This group of people finds a reason to justify their goals(religion, politics, economics, science, hot dogs, burritos, grasshoppers, etc)
4. This group of people come up with an idea to get support by lying about their goals(lobbying instead of charity in this case)
5. This group of people doesn't do what they said and instead pushes towards their goals using #3 to back them up
6. Goal(good or bad) is met and no one knows they were conned.

[Defengar]

imo, much better to buy a load of food for soup kitchens and food pantries. That way you can actually see where your money is going and who is getting it (food).

[Oafus]

1. I don't make the case that the rule preventing discussion of religion limits discussion. But the topics proven itself almost impossible to approach civilly on this board.

2. All the good points you bring up in your post have nothing to do with religion. You can discuss the good they do without brining their religion into. Really, in your post you only mention it twice, and neither of those times make a pro salvation army argument.

Nobody's attacking the salvation army because they're a church (at least that I saw). The discussion is about using funds donated presumably with the intent of alleviating suffering being used for unrelated moral lobbying.

Maharishi, i think you're the only one that understands. What I'm upset with is them saying the money will go to help people, and then going to an unrelated cause.

Like earlier when I said: If I asked you for $5 for gas so I could go home and bought a magazine instead, that would be morally wrong. Doing the opposite of what you say has nothing to do with beliefs, everyone across the spectrum lies.

[Larynx]

I never knew the Salvation Army wasn't a charity. I just went to their website, read what they were about, and now I feel dirty for donating to them.

[Deleted]

guys charities sound like a good thing, but they are run by scoundrels - if you wanna be charitable give some money to the bums on the street, even if they just buy booze or drugs atleast you have brightened their day, and not contributed to political lobbies or campaigns that you didnt know you were when donating